Wolf advocates, in broken record fashion, always resort to the false claim that having wolves in every corner of our landscape is “good for a healthy ecosystem.” Is it?

The claim is that there were abundant wolves in every state of the Union…once. Perhaps that is true, perhaps not. Real historic accounts reveal that even if wolves were in every state of the Lower 48, they did not exist in numbers that some seem to think they did and are demanding that they do today.

When Teddy Roosevelt traveled throughout the West and the Rocky Mountains, he toiled to document the differences between wolves and coyotes and pointed out that each breed of wild dog had different names often depicting the region in which they inhabited. He also pointed out that these wild dog breeds essentially remained geographically separate. This separation limited, or even eliminated any kind of interbreeding between coyotes and wolves. So, one has to ask if this phenomenon of mixed breeds of wild dogs is a modern era event.

When one examines the journals of Lewis and Clark as well as the explorers and trappers that soon followed Lewis and Clark, we see that wild game was not widespread and abundant. It was found in certain pockets. As a matter of fact, often these explorers nearly starved to death due to lack of food from hunting. We also find scant accounts of encounters with wolves.

I recently have been rereading “The Journal of a Trapper” by Osborne Russell. On rare occasions, he mentions the distant howl of a wolf but never an encounter. Is all of this evidence that wolves existed in abundance, so much so that with the number of wolves we have today, along with the number of coyotes, cross-breeding was inevitable?

If wolves and coyotes are important to an ecosystem, as is claimed, should it also be important that we do what we can to ensure that a wolf remains a wolf and a coyote a coyote? That is not what is happening as DNA testing of wild canines is revealing. If the distinct qualities of each canine species become blurred what then becomes of the animal so many are claiming to be wanting to save? The other question is what changes in our ecosystem and what dangers do these changes put on the rest of the items within those ecosystems?

In a recent article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about hybrid coyotes/wolves, a Maine wildlife biologist is quoted as saying that he wonders “what additional wolf-like traits will mean for the future of coyotes.” The article continues to quote the biologist about this subject: “Whether these wolf genes are conferring some kind of advantage to these coyotes,” he said, “that’s where it really gets interesting.”

Interesting may be a bit mild in terms of the possible serious complications to our ecosystems from a mixed bag species we know nothing about. It appears that to this point in time, our wildlife biologists and managers have had only to deal with the wolf and the coyote. Over time and through studies and experience, scientists have learned about these creatures and their behaviors. Along with these, they have discovered how each species interacts with everything within an ecosystem. Throw into this equation a new breed of animal, a hybrid wild to semi-wild canine and what changes? What other species are now being put at risk because some have chosen to artificially and unnaturally grow, by protection, wolves and coyotes and all other large predators? No matter how much some of these people want to rid man from the landscape, thinking that somehow we are ruining everything for the poor animals, it isn’t going to happen. Get over it. Time to move on.

It makes little sense that some would argue that large predators need to be restored to their historic habitats because of the importance of their perceived “in balance” ecosystems while in their effort, mostly due to historical ignorance, attempt to force unlimited numbers of their favorite animals into habitats that not only may not have the room but in so doing destroy other species. Isn’t this selfish, reckless abandon? Perhaps it’s just plain insanity.

A member of the coyote advocate group Project Coyote was quoted in the above linked-to article when referencing coyote management, “If we leave them alone, they will self-regulate.” Not only has this claim been repeatedly proven as a falsehood, consider what is being said here. “If we leave them alone,” is essentially not being practiced by anyone, including the group Project Coyote. It has always amazed me that these clowns will yell and scream in protest that man is attempting to manipulate wildlife in order to meet the social demands of people, and sometimes will even employ a bit of science in their work, while they do all that they can to manipulate the same species for their own selfish purposes. But, I thought that “if we leave them alone, they will self-regulate.” In other words, they want us to leave them alone but they can do as their agenda demands.

From everything I have read and researched, it appears to me that this hybridization of wild canines is a recent phenomenon brought about by the protection of the species. At the rate we are going, there will no longer be wolves or coyotes anywhere where there are human settlements. Perhaps it will be more drastic than that in time. This may solve the problem of keeping the wolf in the habitat where it belongs isolated from human-settled landscapes, but of the actions in place now, what kind of creature are we left with roaming undauntedly on our landscape and what threats from disease and the dangers to other species will exist?

These questions need to be answered before we keep up this foolishness of predator protection and demanding a wolf in every yard.

Now that Roxanne Quimby got her land designated as a national monument, the push is now on to turn the rest of northwestern Maine into useless, inaccessible wasteland some like to call “wilderness.”

As part of this push for locking up land, comes the ignorant belief that wolves are a magic formula needed to carry out the false theory that “Nature” balances itself. Unfortunately we will never get rid of that lie because it became a very powerful tool when it was criminally used to introduce wolves into the Greater Yellowstone area, for personal and monetary gain. Even since the man who invented the false claim has rescinded his theory, the echo chambers of the media, along with environmental useful idiots, continue to perpetuate the fantasy because they want to and need to. It’s that simple.

However, aside from all of this banter about whether or not wolves walk on water and whether or not land should be locked up and called wilderness, there can be serious argument made that in the Lower 48 States, there does not exist a “pure” wolf or a coyote for that matter.

In an article found in the Bangor Daily News, it begins, “WSCH 6’s Bill Green reported this week that a new wolf-coyote hybrid “thrives” in Maine.”

If this is true, and there exists studies that tell us that the wild dogs found in most of the northeast section of country are of a mixed breed of wolf, coyote and domestic dog and any and all canine breeds and mixtures. One would imagine that that mixture is all over the place as, by now, cross-bred wild dogs have mated with other cross-bred wild dogs, and so it goes.

Do these wild dogs “thrive” in Maine, as Bill Green states? Reports vary, some stating that Maine has a “coyote” (hybrid) population in excess of 20,000. Thriving? It would seem that way to me, especially when you consider that it was only in my childhood days – 1960s – that rumors were spreading about “coyotes” showing up in places in the Pine Tree State. Maine never had a viable population of “coyotes” until it began to grow in the 1960s, due to expansion of populations – probably already some kind of add-mixture of wild dog.

Some claim this cross-breeding (media and others like to call the offspring a hybrid) is a natural phenomenon but is it?

Also found in this article is the following statement: “When Europeans began to colonize the United States, wolves were abundant throughout the country.” What does that mean precisely? What is the term “abundant” one’s weighted perception? It appears Bill Green and I “perceive” that a mixed-breed of wild dog “thrives” in Maine. Those who see any dog, wild or domestic, in vast quantities, as something that should be perpetuated, wouldn’t see 20,000 coyotes/cross-breeds as thriving or abundant. But, what about science….real science?

Most certain, the settlers who came before us, learned quickly that large predators in the woods were dangerous and competed with them for, not only their livestock, but for other wild game that was necessary for survival. And thus they killed these wild predators whenever they could. Shouldn’t they have?

But were these wolves “abundant” when the settlers arrived? Bearing in mind the term “abundant,” perhaps the best way to learn about this is to recall the historic accounts, often found in hunters’ and trappers’ journals, including such recordings as those of Lewis and Clark, and names such as Smith, Ogden, Sublette, Work, Meek, Freemont, Preuss, Simpson and Egan. After all, they were the ones on the land even before the settlers.

Most of their journals tell a quite different story of “abundance.” With the exception of some localized areas, west of the Mississippi, both game and wolves were scarce. Explorers, through what is now the Yellowstone Basin, comment that they never heard wolves or coyotes howl. There was little game to be found, and often these explorers, unable to find game to sustain themselves, resorted to killing and eating horse meat. Lewis and Clark experienced the same thing finding themselves trading with the Indians for their domestic dogs to eat in order to survive. From my perspective, that does not describe what I would call an abundance of anything, except perhaps hunger.

Science shows us that natural segregation, often achieved through natural landscape barriers, and population limits found in widespread outbreaks of disease, kept species like wild canines apart in order that cross-breeding was not a common thing. We have learned that the Native Americans knew about wolves and the trouble they caused. Not all Indians worshiped the wolf or found some kind of spiritual guidance or direction from them. The natives deliberately cross-bred certain domesticated dogs with wild dogs in hopes of creating a better hunting animal.

Teddy Roosevelt wrote extensively of his travels, often describing the different looks and sizes of wild dogs he encountered. Roosevelt was one of the first to write about the big “timber wolves” that seemed to exist only beyond the high mountains of what is now known as the Sasquatch Range. What coyotes there were, existed down on the plains.

Common sense should tell us that if we are interested in protecting a wolf or a coyote, we should be doing our best to insure that the two species are not forced into the same habitats where cross-breeding would become even more common, thus mixing the species and destroying the wolf or coyote genes. People, often in their greed and animal perversions, insist on seeing these animals from their cars and out the back windows of their houses. This is a great formula for the destruction of, not only wolves and coyotes, but many other species due to predation and disease.

Granted this effort of segregation becomes a more difficult task with a growing population of man, but protecting the populations of wild wolves and coyotes to numbers that are historically higher than when the settlers first arrived, thinking we are doing great things for the animals, is all wrong.

Even many who would concur that there are “hybrid” wild dogs living throughout Maine and other areas of the country, seem to only care about protecting whatever the cross-bred creature is that exists for the moment. Our own U.S. Government seems to share that same belief.

In attempts to perpetuate wild dogs in the Desert Southwest and in the Southeast, government agents knowingly and illegally introduced real hybrid semi-wild dogs. This is not only illegal but a violation of the Endangered Species Act. What are we doing?

If Maine and other regions are now dealing with “thriving” populations of hybrid wild dogs, there’s a reason for that. The worst thing we can do is perpetuate this cross-breed. If we want to protect the wolf and the coyote, we should be doing all we can to rid the landscape of these hybrid, invasive species. Not only do the genes of wild canines become mixed up, but what also changes with the cross-mixture is behavior – behavior that is most often unpredictable. This adds to the issue of public safety.

To argue that Maine should have wolves is one thing. To make the claim that what the Government and others who are suggesting introduction is actually a pure wolf is foolishness. Perhaps the only wolf that resembles a pure wolf exists in the wilderness regions far to our north, where they belong. These are not indigenous to Maine. Introduction of such a beast, or any kind of add-mixture, semi-wild dogs, calling them wolves, is a violation of the law and should not be tolerated…that is if we actually care about protecting real wolves.

*Note* – I provided few links in this writing. I have written extensively on this subject, including a book. You can use the search function of this website to find more information about most everything I have written in this article.

I grew up in the woods of Maine. It seemed everyday I was in the woods and at least adjacent to them. I rarely saw the wild animals that everyone is seeing today. Is this a good or bad thing?

I never saw a black bear in the wild until I was an adult. Now I am dodging them with my car. I think I saw a bobcat once. Now, we readily see photos of them in the news. Coyotes were unheard of and those claiming to have seen one was laughed at. Today they have become a nuisance in numbers. I saw a moose once standing in the middle of the road drooling. It was a bull and he didn’t really look so hot. Today, all we hear is of the hundreds, perhaps thousands of moose dying each season from winter ticks. Maybe the increase in moose and ticks are related. Lynx was something we called sausages. Now, they are quite often run over by cars. Deer were quite common and seldom did our freezer go empty – it was a necessary thing to have venison to eat through the winter. We were poor.

It seems that today, the cry is persistent to protect any and every kind of animal. Part of what’s wrong with this demand is that it is spurred on by people insisting they want to see these animals in their back yards or from the comfort of the automobiles. I think back to the many, many years of putting on countless miles in the woods and the comparatively less abundance of wildlife. Today, the demands are such that it’s time to revisit just what in the hell we are doing and for what purpose are we doing it.

The results of an overabundance of any one or a number of wildlife species are never any good…at least for the animals. Biology 101 taught us about the diseases that happen when too many of any one animal is crowded into limited space. Space is relative and as ignorant humans, who love to put human traits on every animal, and that live in comparatively close quarters, we may not understand the consequences of protecting wild animals for our own selfish desires.

Cross-breeding of species is happening now at what appears an alarming rate. Not that long ago we heard of a polar bear crossing with a grizzly. Why did that happen? We now know that there really is no such thing as a “pure” wolf. So-called wolves and coyotes, we discover, are nothing more than a hybrid of species. And, I think I am just scratching the surface. Each species carries with it recognizable traits. What happens when species cross? We don’t know. What we do know is often behaviors change and that presents a entire host of other possibilities, the most of which are never any good.

Today, I read about how the Canada lynx, a species of wild cat that is protected by the U.S. Federal Government, as well as some Canadian governments, has been cross breeding with bobcats. The article mentioning this event says, “..biologists are finding a surprise: lynx are mating with bobcats in New Brunswick, creating fertile hybrids.

“It’s a pretty good cross between them,” Libby said. “They look like a bobcat, but they have really long black tufts on the ends of their ears and a little bit larger feet.”

What does this really mean? How will this event change the characteristics of the offspring and the continual breeding and cross breeding of cross breeds, etc.? We don’t know. Each species comes equipped with certain physical traits to aid in their survival. Will cross breeding alter those traits in ways that become detrimental to the species we are trying to protect? Is this a common occurrence that we are just now discovering, or is this rare and due to other circumstances, like over protecting a species or two, forcing overlaps that result in cross breeding?

One of the problems this country is facing is the perpetuated nonsense that somehow man must be removed from the fields and forests in order that the wild species can do whatever it is they are going to do with no help from man. It was never intended to be this way, nor does that proposal work real well.

It is hoped that this perverse pendulum will get to wherever it is headed and swing back to something more closely resembling sanity before we have destroyed our wildlife thinking we are saving it.

“Because venison accounts for one third of their diet, coyotes may have replaced automobiles as the principle deer predator in the Northeast.”

“…the ancestry of the average eastern coyote is 64% western coyote, 26% wolf, and 10% dog.”

“North America supports two species of gray wolf, a western and an eastern species, and that a third species, the so-called red wolf of the Southeast, is merely a blend of gray wolf and coyote – and the dark coat of some North American wolves may be an artifact of crossbreeding with the dogs that accompanied the first humans into the New World.”

“This canine mélange suggests that the biologic definition of a species, which once leaned heavily on reproductive isolation, is shifting.”<<<Read More>>>

Abstract

The Czechoslovakian Wolfdog is a unique dog breed that originated from hybridization between German Shepherds and wild Carpathian wolves in the 1950s as a military experiment. This breed was used for guarding the Czechoslovakian borders during the cold war and is currently kept by civilian breeders all round the world. The aim of our study was to characterize, for the first time, the genetic composition of this breed in relation to its known source populations. We sequenced the hypervariable part of the mtDNA control region and genotyped the Amelogenin gene, four sex-linked microsatellites and 39 autosomal microsatellites in 79 Czechoslovakian Wolfdogs, 20 German Shepherds and 28 Carpathian wolves. We performed a range of population genetic analyses based on both empirical and simulated data. Only two mtDNA and two Y-linked haplotypes were found in Czechoslovakian Wolfdogs. Both mtDNA haplotypes were of domestic origin, while only one of the Y-haplotypes was shared with German Shepherds and the other was unique to Czechoslovakian Wolfdogs. The observed inbreeding coefficient was low despite the small effective population size of the breed, possibly due to heterozygote advantages determined by introgression of wolf alleles. Moreover, Czechoslovakian Wolfdog genotypes were distinct from both parental populations, indicating the role of founder effect, drift and/or genetic hitchhiking. The results revealed the peculiar genetic composition of the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog, showing a limited introgression of wolf alleles within a higher proportion of the dog genome, consistent with the reiterated backcrossing used in the pedigree. Artificial selection aiming to keep wolf-like phenotypes but dog-like behavior resulted in a distinctive genetic composition of Czechoslovakian Wolfdogs, which provides a unique example to study the interactions between dog and wolf genomes.<<<Read More>>>

I wanted to share with readers part of an email that I received written by Dr. Valerius Geist. His email was in part about policies that exist in dealing with and the perpetuation of wolves, particularly in “settled” landscapes, i.e. forcing wolves to live in areas inhabited by humans.

Recently many of us read an article about how “evolution” had created a “new” canine species – a mixture of wolf, coyote and domestic dog. It now appears the “buzz” is about wild dogs interbreeding, with no knowledge or understanding as to the new behavior of the cross-bred wild dog.

Odd isn’t it that such topics become popular in the media when there’s an agenda to be promoted.

Many of us, for years, have been clamoring to get people to understand that the policies of wolf and coyote protection were doing more harm to the actual canine species than the unnecessary and political act of protecting them is accomplishing. The call for scientific management and control over wolves, immediately is responded to by ignorant wolf advocates that we are wolf haters. They can’t even see that what I and many others have been calling for for years has been for the interest of the preservation of the species as a wild wolf and not a Heinz-57 wild, mongrel mutt, worthless to anybody accept those who find it a useful tools to stop land and resource access.

I think Dr. Geist puts it accurately and to the point when he said:

“In a nutshell the wolf conservation policies in Europe, but also cutesy your Fish and Wildlife Service, are a disservice to conservation, and a brutal disservice. I have made my views plain in Europe, that these policies have nothing to do with science and even less with nature conservation. Their effect is to not only do bitter damage to land-use we depend on for sustenance, but also to exterminate the wolf genetically as a species. In settled landscapes, wolves become increasingly dogs. Moreover, there is here another fallacy to contend with: yes, wolves and dogs are very similar genetically. However, they are vastly different organisms. Ask those that have studied both! They should never be included in the same specie designation. Here we deal with another remarkable ignorance, namely the assumption the equal genes means equal organism. This is a fallacy. Humans and chimps are exceedingly similar genetically, but would you give passports and marriage licenses to chimps? Pigs and hippos are very similar genetically to whales, but you do not do much for whale conservation by multiplying pigs! And the destruction of the wolf genome is nothing theoretical, not with western coyote, gray and eastern wolf and dogs flowing together into the worthless mongrel called coy wolf – or even worse, eastern coyote. Those foolish enough to celebrate it as “newly evolved species” do insult to evolution, and may not have noticed that this destroys both, America’s “big wolf” and the “little wolf”! Some triumph in conservation!”

The policies of animal protection worldwide are a reflection of the perverse animal insanity that pervades the people of the world.

Their remains were taken to the provincial veterinary lab for an examination, including checking their stomach contents, estimating their age and using samples of hair and tissue to determine their genetic structure. (There have been reports of wolf-coyote breeding.)[emphasis added] He said relocating the wolves wasn’t feasible.

*Editor’s Note* – Below is part 7 of a 7 part email series about the corruption and bastardized fake science concocted in order to create a mixed-breed wild mutt, call it a red wolf and manipulate the data in order to introduce their Frankenwolf into the forest. I find it all extremely perverted and disgusting.

“Please provide specific and detailed evidence that the “red wolf” that was a “human construct” and was “selectively bred” in a zoo in Tacoma, Washington using hybridized coywolves from the State of Texas was ever present in the North Carolina counties of Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell, Washington, and Beaufort as explicitly stated and added in 9(i) of the 50 CFR Part 17 1995 Rules revisions for the red wolf program in NC.”

Your office promptly sent to me hundreds of pages of USFWS statements, Defenders of Wildlife statements, Ron Nowak statements, Ron Nowak dissertations, Ron Nowak maps, magazine articles, etc. It is humorous but problematic that I never received the only USFWS commissioned study and resulting range map as shown above. It is disturbing that private landowners were able to easily find this map, but your staff and your WMI consultants could not.

I spent a great deal of time reviewing each and every page that was sent to me, looking for any fossil evidence or any direct evidence that a red wolf ever existed in the State of North Carolina.

I have been somewhat perplexed as to how to prove a negative.

I can unequivocally state that there was not one shred of direct, indirect, specific or any physical evidence that a red wolf of any type ever existed in the State of North Carolina, much less the “red wolf” that USFWS invented. If you don’t believe me, read it all yourself. Have your attorneys read it. USFWS could not provide to me any evidence that a red wolf ever existed in the State of North Carolina.

Suffice it to say, your biologists just repeatedly made false statements and manipulated maps and words enough that a trusting general public believed them. The situation reminds a lot me of how your recovery program, to be managed on 250,000 acres of federal refuge land, quickly morphed into a 1.7 million acre government land grab for your invented wolf simply because your biologists needed the land.

It appears to me that USFWS dumped their own commissioned red wolf range map in favor of a Ron Nowak invented map, which shows fossil evidence that matches exactly the 1972 USFWS commissioned home range map with one major exception. With the stroke of a pen, Nowak conveniently drew a fictitious line on the map to include the State of North Carolina. This certainly suited the needs of USFWS just fine.

I believe I have read every wolf “novel” USFWS Ron Nowak ever wrote. Some of the few times North Carolina was specifically mentioned by Nowak was in his article The Mysterious Wolf of the South:

And again here in his article The Validity of the Red Wolf, where he confirms the construction of his invented wolf with his now invented range map:

Let’s now look at Nowak’s map and the manipulation of the drawing in spite of no evidence in NC, which certainly fit the needs of USFWS:

Now, take the time to compare the above Nowak map to the USFWS commissioned red wolf historic range map:

Pretty remarkable isn’t it? USFWS is certainly not one to let the truth and facts stand in their way. The manipulation of data happened and the truth was ignored.

Let’s now fast forward to 1998.

Even in 1998, Nowak is still at a loss for any evidence of a red wolf in the State of North Carolina, yet USFWS has so much money tied up in this farce now that they proceed on in spite of the facts. Just as they continue to do today.

This should not surprise you as USFWS at this time was also ignoring the then available DNA evidence which proved this wolf was not even a unique species. Furthermore by 2011, Dr. Roland Kays in the “most detailed genomic study of any wild vertebrate species” declared the transplanted “red wolf in North Carolina was only 24% wolf and 76% coyote”. USFWS chose to ignore this fact also.

This concludes how the range map was invented.

I know this is getting long but bear with me, the story only gets better.

Now why did USFWS dump their very own commissioned map by their very own red wolf recovery team and adopt a map based on theories presented by Ron Nowak in his PHD dissertation for the University of Kansas?

In the mid to late 1970’s, with the Point Defiance Zoo in Tacoma, Washington full of newly constructed wolves, USFWS was scrambling hard to find a suitable place to turn their new toys loose.

The Land Between the Lakes in Kentucky and Tennessee was selected and targeted for a release site, as this fit the critical historic range requirement for a 10 (j) nonessential experimental species. However in 1984 this project was abandoned due to lack of public and state support. Read between the lines here, these guys were not duped by false USFWS claims about this so called wolf and what it would mean to their State.

This was no problem for an agency full of over zealous biologists. It was at this time that USFWS acquired the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in eastern North Carolina.

On the surface things looked good for the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge location, but there was one major problem. The Endangered Species Act 10(J) rule specifically states that a nonessential experimental population of wolves may only be released within their historical range.

This was certainly not an obstacle for such a creative group of USFWS biologists who had invented a new species. They would just deliberately scuttle and hide from the world their own USFWS funded and commissioned range map based on fossil evidence.

USFWS only needed to invent a new map that would fit their needs. USFWS then conveniently changed their very own range map based upon fossil remains in favor of convoluted statements, hypotheses and surmises from a dissertation done by a student from the University of Kansas in order to make the newly acquired Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge fit their legal requirements of the 10(j) rule under the ESA.

And who was the student whose dissertation was used in lieu of a USFWS commissioned study and map? You guessed it, Ron Nowak of “if the red wolf did not exist we would need to invent it”. Pretty fitting isn’t it?

Mr. Nowak later resigned from USFWS in 1997 saying:

“My primary reason for seeking this opportunity to retire is that this agency is no longer adequately supporting the function for which I was hired, the classification and protection of wildlife pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and indeed, often is working against this function”

So let’s be clear about things at this point.

USFWS constructs a so called red wolf in a Zoo in Washington State by breeding hybrid coywolfs from Texas.

Since the animal never existed, USFWS had to invent the species by ignoring modern DNA analysis funded by USFWS.

When Kentucky and Tennessee said absolutely “NO” to the idea of releasing this new “wolf” in their Land between the Lakes refuge, USFWS conveniently changed their very own commissioned range map based upon fossil remains in order to meet the ESA 10(j) rules.

USFWS then proceeded to release over 100 of the invented red wolves with no ESA Section 7 authorization of which 64 were illegally released on private land.

USFWS has thus far made no attempt to remove these illegally released wolves as requested by the NCWRC in the same manner as they have ignored the private landowner’s removal requests for almost 30 years.

And now Part 7 of this series, confirms USFWS has willfully and intentionally released 132 non-native invasive canines in the State of North Carolina in direct violation of The Endangered Species Act 10(J) rule, which specifically states that a nonessential experimental population of wolves may only be released within their historical range.

Note that these wolves bred from hybrid coywolves trapped over 1,400 miles away in the State of Texas and were manufactured in the State of Washington, over 3,000 miles away from North Carolina.

There is a very good reason for this critical historic range provision in the ESA. 30 years and over $30,000,000 later a defunct program with only 3 more breeding pairs of wolves than the project started with but with countless hybrids produced, is all the proof that anyone needs that it simply does not pay to break the rules and ignore the facts.

This remains true even today with a looming decision regarding the fate of this USFWS program built upon lies, deceit, arrogance, manipulation of data and unlawful activities.

As Director of USFWS,

– after you comply with, our NCWRC request for removal of the 64 wolves and their offspring that were illegally released on private land,

– and then you retrieve the 100 or so wolves and their offspring that USFWS released with no Section 7 authority,

– and then comply with the recent request for removal of wolves from over 514 landowners,

will you then please pick up any remaining wolves in our State and their resulting offspring, as they are a non-native invasive species to our State and were illegally released in violation of the ESA historic range provision by your biologists.

I hope you have a great day.

Sincerely,

Jett Ferebee

PS. I almost forgot. Are you still unable to identify the canine species pictured below?

*Editor’s Note* – While readers await Part VII, of the 7-part email series about the corruption and incompetence of introducing so-called red wolves into North Carolina, consider the evidence presented as to how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service invented a wild dog species to protect under the Endangered Species Act at an overwhelming cost to the American Public. Job security I would guess. After all, isn’t this simply a reflection of all things GOVERNMENT?

Director Ashe,

I know these comments from a rather heated meeting of USFWS biologists in1989 are rather technical, so I have put in bold letters the key and shocking revelations regarding the cover up of the red wolf invention. Keep this quote from USFWS Zoologist/Biologist Ron Nowak in mind as you read.

?
The USFWS’s $30,000,000.00 “Invention”

“In 1979, US Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Ronald Nowak carefully compared the skulls of grey wolves, and coyotes and noticed that the size and shape of the red wolf skull fell midway between that of the coyote and the grey wolf. Nowak’s interpretation of the fossil record further suggested to him that intermediate skulls like that of the red wolf skull first appeared in North America more than a million years ago, well before the first wolves or coyotes.” “Nowak concluded that the red wolf was not only a unique species but also the ancient ancestor of both the grey wolf and the coyote.”

“Nowak’s compelling idea one that persisted almost unchallenged for 10 years, throughout the early years of the Red Wolf Recovery Program.”

“But David Mech had a different theory about red wolves.” “In a 1970 book , Mech had proposed that the red wolf was neither species nor subspecies but a hybrid produced by interbreeding between the grey wolf and the coyote.”

“Into this heated conflict stepped David Mech, one of the world leading wolf experts. In 1989, at an Atlanta meeting of experts on wolf biology, Mech challenged his fellow researches to tell him how they could justify spending so much money rescuing the red wolf when it might not even be a species.”

“In 1989, two University of California biologist, Robert Wayne (of UCLA) and Susan Jenks (of UC Berkley), approached the US Fish and Wildlife Service and offered to settle the matter once and for all.” “Like Nowak, Wayne was an expert on the morphology and taxonomy of wolves and other canids.”

“The government agreed to fund the study, and the two biologist began examining DNA from red wolves, grey wolves and coyotes.”

“The two biologist tentatively and somewhat reluctantly concluded that the red wolf was most likely a hybrid of the grey wolf and the coyote.”

“Nowak and the other biologist at the US Fish and Wildlife Service could not believe what they were being told.” “Maybe, argued the government biologist, Wayne and Jenks had simply missed the DNA sequences that distinguished the red wolf.” Maybe they had not looked at enough DNA.”

“To put to rest any linger doubts, Wayne and other colleagues turned to special receptive regions of the DNA in the nucleus, called micro satellites.” “The results were the same, neither the samples of blood from living red wolves nor the samples from the skins of pre-1930s red wolves showed any unique sequences.” “By 1994, Wayne had found no evidence that the red wolf had ever been reproductively isolated from either grey wolves or coyotes.”

“The red wolf had to be a hybrid of the grey wolf and the coyote.”

“Wayne’s genetic data proved to be an embarrassment to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which had poured millions of dollars into the reintroduction program in the belief that the red wolf was a unique and endangered species.” “Yet the agency had acted in good faith.” “Until Wayne and his colleagues finished their research, the US Fish and Wildlife Service had no way of knowing that the red wolf was not a species.”

“Now the government agency was faced with a terrible dilemma.” “Wayne’s resulting threaten to discredit the wolf recovery program, strip the red wolf of its endangered status, and further undermine the increasingly battered public image of the federal Endangered Species Act.”

*** “To protect the red wolf, the US Fish and Wildlife Service began pressuring Wayne to avoid the word “Hybrid” in his research papers and to substitute the term “intergrade species” and other similar phrases.”

“In 1995, the US Department of the Interior issued a legal opinion that said that hybrids would be protected under the Endangered Species Act if Morphological evidence showed that the hybrids ere similar to the endangered “Pure” form.”

“In essence, if they looked like red wolves, they would be protected.”

“But the genetic data did not support that idea that a “Pure” form of the red wolf had ever existed, certainly not in the last 100 years.”

“In issuing this opinion, the agency excluded all the genetic evidence regarding the red wolf’s species status.” The only question was whether the red wolf looked different from the coyote and the grey wolf.”

“It did, and, therefore, until such time as the government acknowledges the genetic data, the red wolf will be considered a species.”

*Editor’s Note* – Below is Part 5 of a 7-part email series distributed by Jet Ferebee of North Carolina. Please view Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV, by following these links.

It is extremely important for readers to understand a very significant issue that is being discussed here – particularly in this the 5th part. The issue is cross-breeding of canine species or as some prefer to call it, hybridization. Ferebee is accusing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of deliberately concocting a hybrid wild dog. There is strong and ample evidence to support his claim. With a basic understanding of dog breeding and cross breeding, if it is true that government officials created a “Frankenstein” wolf and named it a “red wolf,” not only is the result of their scientific experiment a biological disaster on several levels but, in my opinion, it is a criminal act and those responsible should be held accountable. At the very least those involved are not qualified to be messing around with this scientific, and I use that term very loosely, endeavor.

It is astounding to me that while on the surface it appears that there is a group of people that seems bent on the population of wolves of all mixes and breeds, forced into every American’s back yard, promoted by the claims of protecting and recovering the _______ wolf – you fill in the blank. Yet, nearly every action they are undertaking is an act to destroy the wolf. Are they that stupid or simply completely blinded?

In a recent email exchange with Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus University of Calagary, in reference to the 7-part email exchange that I have been posting, he expresses his dismay and concern for what is taking place and tells me that it is imperative that those of us who are most concerned about the actual preservation of “pure” wolves, educate people on what is taking place. Geist says:

…the absolute failure in wildlife conservation as illustrated by the flowing together of the genomes of gray wolves, eastern wolves, coyotes and dogs into the “eastern coyote” – a misnomer, for that’s no coyote! it’s worthless mongrel, worthless for conservation and of little worth to science. Worse still are the red-wolf, Mexican wolf and release of wolves in the west antics as they set up conditions by which the genetics of both wolves and of coyotes will be destroyed. USFWS policies now insure that we will loose both the “big wolf” and the “little wolf” – the latter a true American with long evolutionary history on this continent. A travesty as far as i am concerned.

Geist ends his email to me by saying:

Isn’t it ironical that we are fighting to keep wolves as wolves, while our opposition is bound and determined to destroy wolves and coyotes as evolved, genetic entities?

*Note* – By “we” in Geist’s statement, he refers to those of us who understand real science and wish to educate others of the need to control and properly management canine predators, keeping each species geographically separate in order to protect the purity of the genetic construct of each animal. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand? If the concern was for actual protection of a wolf species, surely the goal should be to ensure that any cross breeding in the wild be minimized. Forcing hundreds of thousands of “wolves” into human-settle landscapes is a recipe for disaster.

Ferebee’s Email – Part V

Director Ashe,

Today I would like to focus on the non-native invasive canine that USFWS needed to invent, hired a Zoo in Washington State to construct, dumped outside of it’s historical range, and now 30 years and over $30,000,000 later modern DNA has proven is just a mix breed coywolf.

Was the below pictured canine “invented” as USFWS Zoologist/Biologist and “wolf specialist” Ron Nowak suggested it should be? Remember, Nowak conveniently altered the historic range map so as to make it possible to release these non-native canines in NC because it was a coyote free area. More on this later…

Or, was it humanly constructed and selectively bred from hybrid coywolves in a Zoo in Washington State as former USFWS Red Wolf Coordinator Mike Phillips admitted to your WMI consultants, that you recently had to hire to figure out what in the world your biologists were doing in our great State?

Or finally, is this canine just a hybrid coywolf that current DNA analysis now proves is 76% coyote / 24% wolf and thus not protected by the ESA? The below recent 2011 study involving 15 national and international scientists was the “most detailed genomic study of any wild vertebrate species” using “unprecedented genetic technology”. No wonder your invented and humanly constructed “wolf” so readily hybridizes with coyotes.
As Director of USFWS, do you believe the ESA was hijacked by overzealous USFWS biologists to invent, construct, transplant and promote a hybrid coywolf in our State?

As Director of USFWS, can you tell me exactly what percent coyote/wolf this animal on my farm should be considered? The percents, and resulting penalties if it is killed, matter greatly. Unless of course it happens to die from heartworms.

Director Ashe, I once again ask that you prudently take this opportunity in time to admit that this ill conceived and unlawfully executed Federal experiment has failed and can not succeed in NC . Cut your losses and end the charade now please. USFWS has done enough damage to eastern NC and its true native wildlife.